Doctors Refusing To Provide Health Care Services To Parents Who Refuse Vaccines

Doctors Refusing To Provide Health Care Services To Parents Who Refuse Vaccines

Parents who refuse to allow their children to be forcibly injected with cocktails of toxic adjuvants, chemical preservatives, and live viral materials are increasingly being told by mainstream medical quacks that they are no longer welcome as their patients. Convinced that their own personal opinions on vaccines must apply to everyone, these vaccine-pushers have assumed the role of medical dictators, treating everyone who does not agree with their vaccine dogma as if they are unworthy to receive medical care.

According to a study conducted in Connecticut last year, the number of conventional practitioners and pediatricians that say they have dismissed patients because of vaccine refusal appears to be on the rise. While only six percent of physicians said they "routinely" dismissed families over vaccine refusal back in 2001 and 2006, that number appears to at least be in the double-digits today, with one survey of 133 doctors showing that about 30 percent of them have refused patients who resist vaccines.

30% is HUGE! I know it's a controversial topic, but I didn't realize doctors would refuse service because some patients were concerened about the safety of vaccinations. There is definetly enough evidence out there to cause concern.

Just to recap, in case you aren't aware, there is a huge debate about the safety of vaccines. Specifically, they contain things like Thimerisal (50% Mercury) and other additives that have been linked to autism in children. A prominent CDC researcher was even indicted for fraud and money-laundering:

The charges relate to funding for work he conducted for the CDC, which claimed to disprove associations between the mercury-based vaccine preservative, thimerosal, and increased rates of autism.

Source


Vaccines are a multi-billion dollar industry, so when you think about it, they are a product like any other. So, in this context it makes sense for the stakeholders to protect their investment whether harmful or not.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Lousy source. Ad Hominem attacks like "quack" say it all. I doubt there is very much truth in this.Why would a doctor cut off their own income like that?
Bad enough they didn't make any money from vaccinating a patient, now they're going to tell them to f#*k off and that their custom is no longer welcome?
Who wins in such a scenario? Not the patient, not the doctor, not the drug companies. Hmmmmm, the only winner I could possibly see here is Alternative/Natural medecine.

It would be akin to a shopkeeper banning his regular customers who chose not to buy the speciality cookies on sale, despite the fact they were purchasing many other items.

Without even getting into ethics or morality, we can see that a simple economic breakdown of the scenario proves it a highly unlikely one

Please note the lack of binding statements in that piece. Overuse of the word "appears" is a sure sign of an empty hand.

Originally posted by blah yada
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

Lousy source. Ad Hominem attacks like "quack" say it all. I doubt there is very much truth in this.Why would a doctor cut off their own income like that?
Bad enough they didn't make any money from vaccinating a patient, now they're going to tell them to f#*k off and that their custom is no longer welcome?
Who wins in such a scenario? Not the patient, not the doctor, not the drug companies. Hmmmmm, the only winner I could possibly see here is Alternative/Natural medecine.

It would be akin to a shopkeeper banning his regular customers who chose not to buy the speciality cookies on sale, despite the fact they were purchasing many other items.

Without even getting into ethics or morality, we can see that a simple economic breakdown of the scenario proves it a highly unlikely one

Please note the lack of binding statements in that piece. Overuse of the word "appears" is a sure sign of an empty hand.

edit on 19-2-2012 by blah yada because: (no reason given)

Sorry is CBS a better source for you?

www.cbsnews.com...

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


I had to get a blood titer because I didn't have any of my childhood medical records.(even though I had all vaccines and had chicken pox when I was little)..I had to take 3 vaccines in one sitting and I was sick for over a month. I had to fight tooth and nail to have a second blood titer done so that I didn't have to take more unnecessary vaccines . My doctor said" well it doesn't matter if you got the whole series over again because vaccines are so safe" I really wanted to smack him.

I did come across an article that explains the fallacy in titers ...this isn't it but describes the same thingdrtenpenny.com... That our memory cells will activate antibody production under an acute infection, and that titers aren't a great measure of immunity.

This is just wrong that Docs would do this , I wonder if it has to do with liability or some other pressure....... or just arrogance and pride.

I did notice that that vaccines in the past 2 or 3 years have reduced the amounts of mercury and many contain trace amounts or none at all anymore , which is at least a step in the right direction, but no one should have doctors and schools intimidating them.

Another question I would like to ask is how people feel about health care workers being required to take yearly flu vaccines?

There is a devil's advocate position here.

The doctors may actually believe they are lowering the risk dramatically of their patients coming down with what used to be common illnesses.

Therefore they would also believe that patients that refuse the vaccines subject their other patients to a higher risk of these same disease; it is easier to vaccinate them all than sort out the patients at risk from the patients carrying the risk.

And, who wants to go to a doctor and get someone else's kid's sickness, little runts running around with pox, measles, distemper, kennel cough, and who knows what else.

Wording like quack imo isn't a tell tell sign to me.
I don't doubt the article in the least.
You shouldn't be so word picky because I for one, if I think a certain doc may be a quack (with good reason) , then I will call them a quack. Some folks just call it like it is... a spade is a spade. Not ALL docs are quacks though, imo. They are just practicing

This isn't right to be treated that way. Refusal of treatment because of this? Quacks are quacks!

reply to post by lakesidepark



That's exactly what the Docs are saying...

I do find the amount of vaccines a wee one gets as superfluous , maybe this could be a failure of the Docs to work with parents and set up an alternative vaccine schedule and supply vaccines that don't contain mercury. I've seen Docs that just don't like to be questioned period and don't seem likely to want to address the concerns of parents in a reasonable , candid way and offer education and tools.

IF true that would be really stupid of the doctors. Because they would loose patients and money by the truck loads. Fight the system.

Can they legally even refuse to help patients for such reasons?

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Patients have every right to refuse a product that has known side effects. Doctors always say either "rare" side effects and sometimes even lie and say 100% safe. Doctors take a vow to do no harm and if they lie about vaccine safety, or they blackmail or bully patients into having vaccines that do cause harm they should be held morally and legally accountable for said injury.

I live in Texas and once did audits for Insurance companies who gave compensation to physicians for compliance with state preventive health regulations or what many people in the health community call 'Best Practice'. (Best Practice is not local so no doubt many states adopt it). Vaccines would be one of them. In the beginning they gave credit for the recommendation by the dr. Later, I was told that at some point they would only get credit (which works out to be compensation) if they convinced their patients to take/do the recommended test/vaccine etc. on the recommended schedule. I have no idea about Connecticut, or even Tx in the last 2 years, but that may be a reason behind some physicians dropping patients. Both physicians and insurance companies are now geared toward preventive medicine. They are all going by what medical schools teach (who are oft times funded by big pharma) and have bought into the system. These people are audited by the state each year. This likely plays into it.

My son had his first child last year and they refused the hep B vaccine. Hospital staff (uniformed as they were) insisted it was the law. My grandson did not take the vaccine and because of this refusal another nurse recommended a holistic pediatrician who recommended only a few vaccines and not on the schedule that is 'recommended'. He uses only organic food for his baby and between him and the baby doc the baby has had no problems, is lean, active and happy. Just saying...it can be done and there are some good docs out there who think and aren't just about the money.